To Crown a Catholic King

300-Year-Old Law Banning Catholics From British Throne Again Examined

LONDON — An attempt to remove the last piece of anti-Catholic
legislation in the U.K. has not received enthusiastic support from all of the
country’s Catholics. Some think there are other agendas at work.

The Act of Settlement, enacted by Parliament in England in 1701 and
later extended to Scotland, forbids Catholics or those who marry Catholics from
wearing the crown.

Passed at a time when there was a fear of Catholics by the Protestant
majority, it states that only Protestant heirs of Princess Sophia,
granddaughter of James I, may ascend the British throne. It does not, however, prevent a Muslim or Jew
or even an atheist from taking the throne.

Every so often there are calls in Parliament for the legislation to be
scrapped, such as that by Catholic Member of Parliament (MP) Kevin McNamara in
2001.

The latest comes from Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West
and Abingdon. He has been quoted as saying, “It is wrong that
anti-Catholic discrimination is written into the U.K.’s constitution.”

Catholic MP Stephen Pound believes
the act is an example of anti-Catholic prejudice and paranoia that should have
been exorcised long ago.

“In the U.K., Catholics can be the
ruled but never the rulers, and many of us feel that this is not only a
profound insult to our faith but an indefensible relic of a time long gone,” he
said. “If the U.S.A. can elect and cherish a Catholic president and if we are
considered sufficiently to sit in the House of Commons, then the assumption
that we are all potential traitors in thrall to the bishop of Rome becomes an
ever more absurd proposition, and I and many of my parliamentary colleagues
will be backing Dr. Evan Harris.”

“Although my 21-year-old daughter
has no ambition at present to marry one of the Saxon princes, I feel that she
should at least have the opportunity to do so,” he added.

The Act of Settlement reared its head
in 1978 when Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were married. A Catholic, the
princess refused to convert to Anglicanism. As a result, Prince Michael, who
was 15th in line to the throne, lost his place in the succession.

But when the duchess of Kent converted
to Catholicism in 1994, her husband, the duke, retained his place in the
succession because she was an Anglican at the time of their marriage.

In 2008, Canadian Autumn Kelly abandoned her Catholic faith for
Anglicanism so that her then fiancé Peter Phillips, the queen’s grandson, would
keep his place in the line of succession.

Catholic MP John Gummer has been
staunch in his support of the repeal of the legislation.

“The Church of England is in the
ridiculous position where it can be headed by a Mormon but not a Catholic, the
largest Church in Christendom,” he said. “It does seem very odd that we believe
in nondiscrimination about anything else, but we don’t believe that it is
sensible as far as Catholics are concerned.”

Secularizing Bill?

Harris is an unlikely campaigner to repeal the last remaining law
against Catholics. He is a supporter of permissive abortion laws and
euthanasia.

He also wants to end the
discrimination against female heirs to the throne. He believes the current law
clashes with the U.K.’s obligations under the European convention on human
rights, which guarantees the freedoms of belief and speech.

In fact, Harris wants to exclude religion from politics
in Europe and, in his words, “keep it in the home.” He has argued for a secular
Europe and doesn’t believe its Christian roots should play any part in shaping
its laws.

Because of this, MP Ann Widdecombe, a Catholic convert
from Anglicanism, won’t support the bill.

“It’s an attempt to impose secularization on the country,” she said. “And
it’s a direct attack on the Church of England. I won’t be supporting it, and
neither will a lot of other Catholic MPs I know.”

Since the reign of King Henry VIII
in the 16th century, the ruler of England has also been supreme governor of the
established Church.

At her coronation in Westminster
Abbey in 1953, Queen Elizabeth II pledged to maintain and preserve the Anglican
Church’s doctrine, worship and discipline. In reality, however, she only acts
on the advice of the prime minister (who is allowed to be Catholic).

Opponents to the repeal of the Act of Settlement argue that a Catholic
would be unlikely to swear an oath to defend the Church of England because of
allegiance to the pope.

Catholic Bishops

While
the Catholic bishops in Scotland have been outspoken in their criticism of the
300-year-old legislation (the late Cardinal Gordon Winning once described it as
“a grubby little secret that shames the nation”), the bishops of England and Wales have been more muted.

The
late Cardinal Basil Hume showed little interest in it. And while Cardinal
Cormac Murphy-O’Connor did write to parliamentarians in 2001, urging them to
support McNamara’s bill, this time around he has stayed out of the debate.

The issue has always been very low on the
bishops’ agenda because of the implications a change to the act would have for
the Church of England. The last thing the bishops want is to be seen launching
an attack on the established Church.

The bishops have always tiptoed around anything that might be construed
as meddling in the affairs of the Church of England. Because of how a
repeal of the act would affect the Church of England, few expect Harris’ bill
to succeed.

Comments

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.